The beak of a bird is a weapon and a tool for eating. In commercial production, poultry are raised in close proximity to each other. In this environment, young birds may use their beaks for pecking other birds, potentially causing disfigurement, illness, or death. The sharp tip of the beak is the most dangerous part of the beak. In addition, adult poultry may use their beaks as weapons to damage other adult and juvenile poultry. This use of the beak as a weapon causes economic losses for the poultry producer. Accordingly, a portion of the beak is typically removed from poultry to minimize its effectiveness as a weapon.
Previously, debeaking methods were based on the principle of killing all tissue just ahead of the nostril by severing the blood supply and generally destroying the tissue of the beak. This was done through cutting the beak with a blade or by bringing the beak in contact with a hot object to burn through the beak. Although bleeding may be minimized by cauterization, the wound resulting from these processes produced a substantial amount of pain and shock in the bird.
In these prior art processes, imprecise positioning of the beak and ineffectiveness of the method used resulted in several disadvantages. For example, the beak could heal and regenerate if the blood supply to the beak was not completely cut. Furthermore, when the veins are cut close to the nostril, they are large and difficult to seal resulting in problems avoiding infection or bleeding. The prior art method also could induce severe shock and pain to the bird.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,651,731 (Gorans et al.) addresses many of these issues. For example, the apparatus and methods described therein provide a more humane method for treating the beaks of poultry because the method is bloodless, induces little or no shock, and minimizes damage to the bird. It did not, however, address the issue of retardation in growth of the lower beak of a bird. In fact, the method and apparatus were specifically designed to avoid treating the lower beak of the bird. Allowing the lower beak to grow without interference may, however, allow some species of birds (e.g., chickens) to scatter significant amounts of food using that lower beak. The scattered food is typically wasted and does not contribute to the nutrition of the bird.
Another issue that may be raised by treating only the upper beak of a bird is that mating behavior may be adversely affected. In some species of birds, e.g., chickens, the male bird typically grasps the female in his beak during mating. If the male's lower beak extends past the upper beak, the male's ability to grasp the female may be inhibited, thereby adversely affecting mating behavior and/or success.
Previous attempts by the inventors to provide methods and apparatus for treating the lower beak may, however, inadvertently damage the tongue of the bird if the bird's tongue is extended into the beak during the beak treatment process. Birds with damaged tongues may experience difficulties in eating, thereby reducing the growth rate of the bird.